Yes, I was worried that Democrats were losing the narrative-arms-race. If the president’s speech is any indication, I was wrong. Sometimes it feels good to be wrong, especially in light of the president’s all-out assault on the Ryan plan. The president provided a clear – realistic – alternative to the Tea Party plan for America, capitalizing nicely on GOP overreach.

Also, Brad DeLong goes over the good and bad elements of the framework. The bad is essentially the surrender of further fiscal stimulus and infrastructure spending. Maybe that ball can be picked back up if Democrats retake the House. Maybe it will be too late for stimulus at that point.

Update.

I agree with commenters who point out that what we need is not talk of the deficit at all but rather talk of job growth and stimulus. In that sense, the narrative is still rooted in the GOP’s framework. However, it appears Obama is now calling their bluff. Can a reversal of momentum steer the conversation back to job creation? Stimulus spending? I’m not sure. But sometimes you work with what you’ve got.

Why is everyone still so surprised when President Obama gets it right? I supported him because I believed that he would most likely get it right. He keeps reinforcing that belief, yet all these people are surprised, every time. More people than just that histrionic Tory, formerly of the Atlantic website, who I expect to be that silly.

I’m beginning to be confused as to why they are always surprised; I’d have expected them to have caught on by now.

Realistically there’s nothing Obama could say or do to get more infrastructure and stimulus through this congress. But if he can get a moderate comprehensive deficit plan done before the election that is a huge win for progressives. It means he can expend political capital in his second term on more important things like immigration reform and a comprehensive energy plan. That’s where we can get extra stimulus and infrastructure spending.

I do think a lot of whiners have no idea what is in the Medicare or other programs that they gripe about Obama will cut. Except he won’t be cutting them. Except the memebers of the PL are prolly up in arms about, well, something by now.
I say those in the PL are a bunch of arrogant know it alls. Means they are pretentious and truly ignorant.

@a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q): as a fantasy novel author once opined in a book about trains and quasi-rape porn, contradictions don’t exist. whenever you think you are facing one, check your premises. you will find that one of them is wrong.

The bad is essentially the surrender of further fiscal stimulus and infrastructure spending.

I was generally pleased with the speech, and, while not meaning to be a turd in the punchbowl, that blocked quote ain’t chopped liver. The economy is at risk of taking another nosedive without greater stimulus, and if it does, it will be “Obama’s plan” that will be blamed–no matter that his plan is better than the Scorched Earth proposal put forth by Pretty Boy Ryan.

… by saying Ryan’s plan leaves people over 65 to the mercy of the insurance industry, the President is basically admitting that his new health care law was designed with the intention of leaving those under 65 to mercy of the private insurance industry. Ryan’s plan to turn Medicare into an income-based, sliding-scale voucher that seniors use to buy only private insurance on a loosely regulated exchange is nearly identical to the Obama Affordable Care Act’s basic design that gives the uninsured under 65 income-based, sliding-scale vouchers to buy only private insurance on loosely regulated exchanges. Under both plans, the size of these vouchers is designed to grow slower than the cost of insurance, resulting in shrinking benefits. How Obama was able to sell this basic design–which he admits leaves people to the “mercy of the insurance industry”–as some great progressive victory is beyond me.

It went from “we need to reduce the deficit by cutting programs people need” to “we need to reduce the deficit by cutting programs people need”.

Actually, it went from “we need to save the government money by shoving the rising cost of health care onto individuals” to “we have an obligation to provide a safety net, and we need to cut costs by getting more for our health-care dollar.”

Until you take on the cancerous tumors that feed off the health care system, by either cutting them off completely, or shrinking them to the point of oblivion with chemo, you’re not going to solve the basic issue of the failing American health care system.

@a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q): I think after years of Lucy pulling the football away, many Democrats/liberals/progressives are gunshy. Even though Obama has let them kick a couple field goals, it is hard to get past the instinct that he is gonna pull it away next time.

I like it when Obama speaks about values and frames these arguments in moral terms and I think he did it well today. The concept of “balance” in today’s Washington sends chills down my spine, but again, my opinion on this irrelevant. The vast majority of Democrats trust the president to look after their interests and Independents like the idea of bipartisan solutions regardless of the details, so this makes sense for him. But the themes he struck about the commitment to seniors and the less fortunate are important themes for the president to reiterate, for the good of our society as a whole.

@Villago Delenda Est:
How are you going to get the House Republicans to cough up the money for that?
The debt is serious as if can cause problems for the US. We don’t own the debt. Any instability like the US debt going out of control would cause trouble for us. The deficit rising can cause doubt about the solvency of the US.
Bush really damaged this country and he had a lot of help from Congress.
Look at OH and NJ. Federal money was turned down for transportation.

@Villago Delenda Est: You have far to much faith in the Serious People. The Ryan plan is the faeries died during Bush because Washington didn’t clap load enough. Logically it would turn the US into a third world country, but the people calling for it aren’t about logic. They’re about protecting an ideology at all costs.

that’s complete and utter bullshit, because seniors use vastly more health care than “everyone else.” They’re the high end of the risk, which makes it prohibitively expensive for them to purchase private insurance even with government subsidies.

“Mandingocare” (or whatever Republican meme you’re oh-so-progressively parroting today) was meant to be an improvement over the system that was already in place. Since this system was nothing, it arguably achieved that goal, although you are certainly welcome to disagree.

If we had single-payer healthcare for everyone in America and replaced it with “House Ni**ercare” (tm Firedoglake), then it would clearly not have been an improvement, just as replacing Medicare with a private-insurance-plus-voucher system would not be an improvement. But we did not have single-payer healthcare in the first place, so your agument is complete nonsense.

@Villago Delenda Est:
Obama spoke about the revenue side. The tax structure, the ending of the Bush tax cuts and the military spending that is over the top.
The Republicans are full of it. They would have people like me in a cardboard box without a bridge to go under.

Yes, I was worried that Democrats were losing the narrative-arms-race. If the president’s speech is any indication, I was wrong.

Except that the problem isn’t what you, or I, or the Balloon Juice commentariat think, or say, about President Obama’s plan vs. Banana-Republican jive-o-nomics: it’s how the “debate” will be framed by our disgracefully dysfunctional “MSM” – and the odds that THAT “debate” will be anything like a reasoned, rational reality-based discussion are probably too high to calculate.

Except, of course, Ryan wants to take away something seniors have and need; and ACA gives non-seniors something they don’t have and need. Unlike some of the others, Joe, it’s hard to tell with you if it’s lack of understanding or intent that underlies the stupid; or perhaps, whether it’s Teh Stupid, or intentional dishonesty. The lack of consistency in your bad arguments makes it harder to figure.

Except that the problem isn’t what you, or I, or the Balloon Juice commentariat think, or say, about President Obama’s plan vs. Banana-Republican jive-o-nomics: it’s how the “debate” will be framed by our disgracefully dysfunctional “MSM” – and the odds that THAT “debate” will be anything like a reasoned, rational reality-based discussion are probably too high to calculate.

You mean obsessing about whether Joe Biden fell asleep during the speech is dysfunctional? Who knew?
Certainly easier. Not only don’t they have to read the speech, they don’t even have to listen to it on tape. Analysis so easy, a caveman pre-schooler can do it.

E.D. Cain: if you don’t know Einstein’s definition of insanity you really need to look it up. This is the same thing obama has been pulling for 4 years now: give a fluffy speech that progressives want to hear (even though this one is center-right and just appears progressive against the cacophonous of batsh*t insane republican shrieking we’ve heard non-stop for 2 years), but then enact either the opposite or something so far off of his words it bears no resemblance. The list is staggering:

Patriot Act
Closing Guantanamo
States Secrets
Support for Unions
Support for Constitutional Womens’ rights
Killing the public Option
bush tax cuts for the rich
no torture and rendition
and on and on

All things obama gave nice sounding flowery speeches only to do the opposite.

And if you can’t understand what Einstein said about insanity, perhaps you could figure out what P. T. Barnum meant was born every minute.

@Villago Delenda Est: Amen. Sure, we likely would have had a financial meltdown and gone into debt to deal with the aftermath, but we would have gone into it with a national debt in the $0.5-$2trillion range.

Odd. I’d think that insanity is just hearing a speech and then writing a post claiming that it said the opposite of what it actually said. You wrote your screed before he uttered a word, and you’d repeat it no matter what he did or said.

Much as I’m happy John is getting a lot of exposure with GOS linking here a LOT lately, I wish they would quit it. All these trolls come running over here screaming about how Obama wants to kill us all are too tiresome for words. Not a firing neuron in the bunch.

Did anyone notice how all three networks decided to lead their evening newscasts with a sleeping air traffic controller story after pissing and moaning the President was “not serious” about the deficit.

@joe from Lowell: but unless the deals struck today over the long term debt are binding on future congresses, you can’t truly fix the long term debt problem (also you can’t even be certain those problems will show up as they depend greatly on what happens in the interim), which makes fixing the short term problems of much greater priority, and trading the fixes for short term problems to “fix” long term problems quite problematic.

Obama will give one speech on this stuff and we’ll never hear him mention it again. He has no appetite for political communication that involve repetition and 2-3 simple concepts. So good luck with that whole changing the narrative thing, because the republicans will be back with the same old shit tomorrow. And they’ll keep it up day after day until it becomes political reality.

Can a reversal of momentum steer the conversation back to job creation?

I think you should propose the EDK Freemarket Fantasy Forest Jobs-Creating Agenda. How do you sound any different from the teabagger caucus that tacks jobcreating or jobkilling on every policy? I bet there is a “market-based” solution in there somewhere.